We it seems have excepted we will for the near future be ruled under the Westminster system.
I very much would prefer reform,no Senate would be a start.
I propose major party's put donkey party's up in seats that are tight, to use up preferences,why?
In the Senate sits a DLP Senator, put there by Labor preferences, no Friends these two.
A south Australian Senator who too prospered on other party's preferences ,not intended to put him there.
In the lower house a Green sits,put there by Tony Abbott making a choice to give him preferences.
As the 88% who do not vote greens, the current beneficiary's of our system why give such power.
Andrew Wilkie sits in the house, while I understand his reasons are good, holding this government to ransom on poker machines.
He ran third ,yes he finished third on first preference votes but won the seat.
Today the greens tomorow? Christian fundamentalists, Muslim, why do we not elect the most popular?
If the major party's run candidates to absorb preferences just maybe we will get the people most want in Parliament.
Not as it is some truly by chance winning a lottery at public expense.

do we really accept the system
or just allow its excess..cause we dont want to do 'better'

get rid of states before getting rid of the senete
and even the senetors..before loosing the oversight of a senete

yes the parties allrewady put up donkey nominations
cause their preferences for you..
..or against you
make the difference between obeying the liberatters
or the labratters party machine/men's...how to vote orders

most of the rest i will take as commentory

my commentary is get rid of parties
councils and the states...

just have local school districts
who send their rep..to govern on their local behalf

each govt gathering..would be to resolve specific issues
with the schools reps being specialists in this weeks debate

govt should look for a concensus
[concensus forces deal making]

but no govt level should be allowed to raise tax or create new taxes..nor give out money..to non govt organuisations

ie only controls the issue of money/credit[via the banks]
and insures finances and underwrites the local school disticts
per head..of the council like areas/services they run for the good of us all

good luck with the topic

OUG what you are saying would be shared by about one tenth of one percent of voters.
I am more than pleased with that, the world you lay claim to never existed, you have of late put your name to things so weird it stunned.
First I want to forecast some one will launch in to Windsor and oak shot.
It would be wise to remember both won very clearly, by big margins, first preference majority's.
Not sure about Oakshot,But Windsor could better the leaders of both party's, he is head and shoulders above in honesty trust worthiness and likability.
Greens have a higher profile on the net, but the truth in my post is this.
IF ONLY Conservatives think as I do, the greens must confront the truth.
3 plus voters distrust them for every vote they own.
A party could be formed, call it the preference party.
Its single policy could be to ask voters to give it third or even second preferences to see majority control of both houses

Belly, I'm really not on your case particularly, but you keep in posting such one-eyed, partisan and ill-informed nonsense that I feel I must respond. Nothing personal, you understand.

Firstly, preferences only come into play when nobody wins an absolute majority in the lower house or a a quota in their own right in the Senate. Since nobody has the direct support of the majority of voters, the object then becomes to identify the candidate who will be most acceptable to the majority of voters in the electorate. The system you favour - first past the post - actually guarantees that the person elected will have less supporters in their electorate than those who oppose them.

The allocation of preferences is a way to try and ensure that the 'least unpopular' candidate is elected, such that while most people may not get their first preference, they can at least live with the person thus elected to represent them. The only real objection to preferential voting comes from rusted-on members of the ALP and Coalition who object to anybody else being represented in government, which they see as their rightful province.

Out of time now, bit I'll clarify your other misapprehensions later. Hope this helps :)

I am in doubt that the current political system is good for Australian's Democracy.

But preferences are distorting the results less than the coalition deals. Each political party should stand on its own at election day. After the elections the party with the majority votes each time should decide with which other party or parties to form government.

A situation where one party holds the majority in the parliament and the senate is the worst for the democratic system. That's what I would call a party dictatorship and it only differs from the CCP because we have question time where the opposition has the chance to be against everything the government does, even if it is good.

The second problem is that most parties muzzle their members which is bad for democracy as well. No free speech for party members. We need more independents because they stand for what we have elected them for.

A proforma two party system is also no good for the democratic system. We should have more parties in Australia.

In addition the press is not helping the political process to make good decisions.
Crating each week another poll is journalistic masturbation. A cheap way to fill news content instead of analysing the topics and feed the public with real information.

Polls each quarter year and weekly before elections would be far enough. I guess Australia is world leader in regards of polls.

The only good democratic parliament is a hung parliament because topics have to be discussed and cannot be dictated by the PM or one party.

Say as you wish Morgan, try to drown my thoughts in a mud that infers I am unaware or a bit silly.
You will be aware your lower house green got there on conservative preferences.
That Wilkie ran third but won on preferences.
You know too family first got a senate position on Labors left overs.
Lets not duck, weave and dive around the truth.
Most Australians, did not want your Greens to hold the balance of power.
My idea is for majority rule, and that,as it should, frightens the greens.